The Association of Oregon Corrections Employees (AOCE) and Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE) were negotiating a successor collective bargaining agreement after their previous contract expired on June 30, 2024. During mediation, OCE made a formal proposal on July 18, 2024, which included a COLA and other terms but omitted a one-time $1,500 bonus sought by the AOCE. On July 22, 2024, the AOCE requested detailed cost information from OCE regarding vehicle purchases and a showroom remodel, citing member concerns about OCE’s spending priorities. OCE provided a narrative explanation for the expenditures but refused to disclose specific cost figures, arguing the information was irrelevant to future contractual obligations. The AOCE insisted the data was necessary to address member questions and assess OCE’s claims of fiscal responsibility. OCE maintained its refusal, leading to the first allegation of an unfair labor practice.
Separately, OCE sent three emails directly to bargaining unit members on August 9, August 30, and September 3, 2024, summarizing bargaining proposals and tentative agreements. The emails were factual and neutral, outlining terms like COLAs, shift differentials, and leave policies. The AOCE objected, arguing the emails constituted direct dealing and interfered with its role as the exclusive representative. OCE defended the communications as transparent updates and denied any intent to bypass the AOCE. The AOCE, however, claimed the emails caused confusion among members, particularly when OCE referenced an “Option B” that the AOCE had excluded from its membership poll.
The AOCE filed a complaint alleging two primary violations: first, that OCE failed to adequately respond to an information request under ORS 243.672(1)(e), and second, that OCE engaged in improper direct dealing with bargaining unit members by sending emails about bargaining proposals, violating ORS 243.672(1)(b) and (e).
The Employment Relations Board of Oregon ruled that OCE violated ORS 243.672(1)(e) by failing to provide the requested costing information. The Board emphasized that relevance under the statute is determined by a liberal standard, and the information sought – specific costs of recent expenditures – was “clearly relevant to mandatory subjects of bargaining,” including wages and benefits. The Board rejected OCE’s argument that past expenditures were irrelevant to future funding, stating, “OCE’s ability to fund recent significant expenditures provides insight on how OCE has managed money in past budget cycles and, therefore, has at least potential relevance to OCE’s representations regarding its current financial circumstances.” The Board ordered OCE to cease and desist from withholding the information and to comply with the request within 30 days.
However, the Board found no violation regarding the direct dealing allegations. It concluded that OCE’s emails were permissible because they merely conveyed factual, neutral summaries of bargaining positions without soliciting employee action or undermining the AOCE. The Board acknowledged the timing was “a close call,” as the emails were sent over the AOCE’s objections during critical bargaining stages. Yet, it noted the emails lacked any “commentary on what OCE wanted employees to do” or any “disparagement” of the AOCE. The Board also found no evidence that the emails actually influenced members or disrupted the AOCE’s role, stating, “The Association’s mere belief that OCE’s email harmed its communications is not evidence of impermissible interference.” Thus, the Board declined to impose civil penalties or reimburse filing fees for this claim.
In its reasoning, the Board distinguished between permissible employer communications and unlawful direct dealing. It cited precedent allowing employers to inform employees of bargaining positions but prohibiting conduct that “amounts to dealing with the union through the employees, rather than the employees through the union.” The Board emphasized that OCE’s emails did not cross this line, as they were “neutral insofar as they neither made any new proposals nor offered any commentary on what OCE wanted employees to do.” While the AOCE argued that the emails caused confusion, the Board found this insufficient to prove a statutory violation, noting the absence of evidence showing actual harm to the AOCE’s representational role.
Oregon Corrections Enterprises, Case No. UP-042-24 (ORB 2025)